Some time ago, I came across a website, the only of it's kind that I am aware of, where a convert to Orthodoxy talks about why he converted to Orthodoxy in the Oriental Church, instead of the Eastern Church.

I am posting this to see what my Orthodox brethren in the Oriental Churches have to say about this, to see if the author presents accurate information and good reasoning, so please share your thoughts on it.

In Christ,Aaron

PS- I would very much like for this thread to stay with it's original intent, so I hope people don't start posting to try to turn this into some kind of Eastern vs. Oriental war. We have been there and done that people, so let's not resort to that.

IC XC NIKAPersonally, I find this site to be correct. When people ask me to explain why I choose OO over EO, I usually explain it in light detail, then give that link; but I am not as informed as many OO on this site, so take my opinion as you will.copticorthodoxboy

After spending years, bored to tears, trying to find something in the Protestant, semi-liturgical, evangelical, new-church-popped-up-on-the-next-block, new-golden-boy-preacher, psycho-pop-preacher/teacher/TV motivational money seekers ------- it is such a relief to read posts by people that discuss things that I am virtually clueless about! I am excited to have to look things up, just to keep up with one post or comment! Is there a good source on the internet for finding out the background of the difference between OO and EO (I figured out what those mean, lol!) I just want to know for info...not trying to start anything Thank you!Kardia

I am posting this to see what my Orthodox brethren in the Oriental Churches have to say about this, to see if the author presents accurate information and good reasoning, so please share your thoughts on it.

In Christ,Aaron

PS- I would very much like for this thread to stay with it's original intent, so I hope people don't start posting to try to turn this into some kind of Eastern vs. Oriental war. We have been there and done that people, so let's not resort to that.

The author (Mike) must be from the Antiochian Syriac Orthodox church. There is something very wrong in his Oriental Orthodox FAQ. He has consciously created a question against the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (Indian Orthodox). I must say that his judgement about the Church is wrong. Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church is officially a amember of Oriental Orthodox communion and is repsesented in all OO official ecumenical meetings with other Churches, that is from 1965 (last Ecumenical council of OO in Addis Ababa) onwards.

Regarding other topics in his website, I have no comments. I have plans to create a true version of OO FAQ against such false information.

To learn more about the Oriental Orthodox history in an impartial way, please visit:

paul2004,Please pardon my side question here, but you mention "...all OO official ecumenical meetings with other Churches, that is from 1965 (last Ecumenical council of OO in Addis Ababa) ..."Exactly how many and what are the ecumenical councils of OO since 451?

Demetri

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Sorry to butt in but there were not "officially ecumenical" councils from 451 to 1965. The 1965 was called by His Royal Highness Emperor Haile Salaisse.

Anastasios

451 was not an ecumenical council from OO perspective. After 431 (Ephesus), heads of OO churches and representatives met only once, that was in the council convened by Emperor Haile Selassie in 1965. This council mainly reaffirmed the common OO faith, OO unity with Eastern Orthodox and other churches, common Sunday school curriculum for OO etc. Following churches participated in this council:

451 was not an ecumenical council from OO perspective. After 431 (Ephesus), heads of OO churches and representatives met only once, that was in the council convened by Emperor Haile Selassie in 1965. This council mainly reaffirmed the common OO faith, OO unity with Eastern Orthodox and other churches, common Sunday school curriculum for OO etc. Following churches participated in this council:

(Sure, I know you don't accept as 'ecumenical' 451, but you did participate. no?)

Demetri

Please take this response lightly, not in the sense of content, but how ones emotions may be affected. Any discussion on Chalcedon can turn sensitive for both of us. I don't know if this is the right thread for a discussion on the Ecumenical nature of a council. Neither Indian, nor the Armenian church participated in 451. But the faith adopted in this council, called the 'Thumsa of Leo' was rejected. Thus what makes a council ecumenical is not the participation of all, rather a common consensus, the faith accepted, without disrupting the unity of the Church. Such a common understanding was not reached in 451. In this sense, it is not Ecumenical for OO. In 1995, OO reached a common understanding on how the Church should relate to other Churches, especially closer relationship with EO. In this sense 1995 is Ecumenical, as it is described in the minutes of the council.

Thank you, Paul.And, no, I am not offended. Your explanation is exactly what I have been looking for. As the EO have had local councils and even general synods since the 7th, councils which are not formally called 'ecumenical' but have the force of our universal acceptance by virtue of not being rejected by any EO church, I have tried to find similar OO councils. My wishes have been fulfilled. Thanks to all participants in this thread.

Demetri

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

"The question then comes in how these terms are used in regards to Christology. In the Nicene-Contantinopolian Creed, we see that "Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary," thus the foundation is made clear. In terms of Christology the Oriental understanding is that Christ is "One Nature--the Logos Incarnate," of the full humanity and full divinity. The Byzantine understanding is that Christ is in two natures, full humanity and full divinity."

I still do not understand how this is anything more than a semantical difference.

I still do not understand how this is anything more than a semantical difference.

Matthew777,Please do yourself a big favor and locate a copy of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed in the original Greek as accepted in Ecumenical Council. Then locate the exact word in Greek, translated through Latin into English as "incarnate". You will not find the word "incarnate" in the original Greek. What you will find, and I will not tell you more, is a word which has major impact on your semantics argument and one which does not mean "incarnate" as it is being used. More I will not say on this board, keeping to the rules. You must learn on your own.

Demetri

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

What I would really like is for an EO member of this board to defend Chalcedon, not just by saying "This is what my church believes and therefore it is true" but by actually sharing well-developed personal resaons why we should accept Chalcedon.

I also would like someone to explain how believing that Jesus is of two natures instead of one nature that is both fully divine and fully human is not dualism.

I honestly would like that, and I am not trying to offend anyone in this request.

And please refrain from calling us "monophysite" because that really is nothing more than a strawman. We are miaphysites, and there is a difference.

And we are out on the sidelines and we don't think that either of you are heretics, and we just want the arguing to stop and the peace to begin.

Who is the "we" that you have chosen to speak for?

I would assume the Oriental Orthodox, but I am not so sure that all of the Oriental Churches share your "beliefs", especially in regards to Roman Catholicism and whether or not it is heretical.

Insofar as stopping the "arguing" and for the "peace to begin", it has been going on for quite some time now and I don't believe that any of the Churches are just going to all get together and have a happy family reunion at the drop of a hat because that is what you think it would take.

During this unfortunate time where the Churches have been seperated, some bad blood has unfortunatley been built up, and things have been done and said by all sides, so it is going to take plenty of time and prayer for all the wounds to be healed.

Quote

What I would really like is for an EO member of this board to defend Chalcedon, not just by saying "This is what my church believes and therefore it is true" but by actually sharing well-developed personal resaons why we should accept Chalcedon.

I also would like someone to explain how believing that Jesus is of two natures instead of one nature that is both fully divine and fully human is not dualism.

I think if this was to happen, it should happen in another part of the forum, because I don't think that it would be appropriate to place to post reasons why the Oriental Orthodox should accept Chalcedon in a section of the forum where our Oriental Orthodox brethren can take refuge from that sort of thing.

You may wish to start a new topic in another part of this forum.

Quote

PS- I would very much like for this thread to stay with it's original intent, so I hope people don't start posting to try to turn this into some kind of Eastern vs. Oriental war. We have been there and done that people, so let's not resort to that.

The above is how I taken from my original post which started this thread, and I think your requests to "prove Chalcedon was correct" and that Jesus had two natures is an attempt to take this thread off track and the consequences of people providing you with answers to your requests may bring a negative aspect to this thread which it did not have previously.

Quote

And please refrain from calling us "monophysite" because that really is nothing more than a strawman. We are miaphysites, and there is a difference.

I've yet to see anyone do this yet and if they decide to do something that silly then I am sure that Antonius and Mor will take care of business.

What I would really like is for an EO member of this board to defend Chalcedon, not just by saying "This is what my church believes and therefore it is true" but by actually sharing well-developed personal resaons why we should accept Chalcedon.

I also would like someone to explain how believing that Jesus is of two natures instead of one nature that is both fully divine and fully human is not dualism.

I honestly would like that, and I am not trying to offend anyone in this request.

And please refrain from calling us "monophysite" because that really is nothing more than a strawman. We are miaphysites, and there is a difference.

I'm sorry that I didn't read everyone's posts on this interesting topic as I am pressed for time.

I am currently EO, but am convinced that I should become OO for the following reasons:

It has been said that whatever differences there might historically have been between the two Churches, they now at least accept each other's Christology as Orthodox. I, personally, would call this a correct answer, but are we asking the right question?

Even if the teachings of the EO Church are not continuous with those implicit at Chalcedon (the vindication of the Antiochene interpretation of the Formulary of Reunion of 433 bearing truth to this), the EO Church is still, nevertheless, historically continuous with that Council. Some important questions are raised as to the pneumatic and apostolic validity of a Church which is historically and causally continuous with a Council as questionable as Chalcedon. These are questions not to be taken lightly. It raises the question, "Exactly how much fulness of Truth or Holy Spirit abides in a Church which maintains continuity with a council so questionable?" Exactly how much Holy Spirit resides in a Church which falsely condemned St. Dioscorus or which had to "clarify" itself with another Council (Constantinople 553)---I mean, does the Holy Spirit, speaking through the auspices of a General Synod, really need to "clarify" Himself? These are questions I don't pretend to know the answer to. But that is precisely why I want to become OO. I'd rather join a Church which I know to always have had the fulness of Truth and Holy Spirit than a Church where it is merely uncertain.

You see, I have the ardent desire to be connected to the True Church (and I do believe there is a true Church). Becoming OO would be one more step to such a surety.

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

I'm sorry that I didn't read everyone's posts on this interesting topic as I am pressed for time.

I am currently EO, but am convinced that I should become OO for the following reasons:

It has been said that whatever differences there might historically have been between the two Churches, they now at least accept each other's Christology as Orthodox. I, personally, would call this a correct answer, but are we asking the right question?

Even if the teachings of the EO Church are not continuous with those implicit at Chalcedon (the vindication of the Antiochene interpretation of the Formulary of Reunion of 433 bearing truth to this), the EO Church is still, nevertheless, historically continuous with that Council. Some important questions are raised as to the pneumatic and apostolic validity of a Church which is historically and causally continuous with a Council as questionable as Chalcedon. These are questions not to be taken lightly. It raises the question, "Exactly how much fulness of Truth or Holy Spirit abides in a Church which maintains continuity with a council so questionable?" Exactly how much Holy Spirit resides in a Church which falsely condemned St. Dioscorus or which had to "clarify" itself with another Council (Constantinople 553)---I mean, does the Holy Spirit, speaking through the auspices of a General Synod, really need to "clarify" Himself? These are questions I don't pretend to know the answer to. But that is precisely why I want to become OO. I'd rather join a Church which I know to always have had the fulness of Truth and Holy Spirit than a Church where it is merely uncertain.

You see, I have the ardent desire to be connected to the True Church (and I do believe there is a true Church). Becoming OO would be one more step to such a surety.

How is Chalcedon any more "questionable" than the three that preceded it?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I'm sorry that I didn't read everyone's posts on this interesting topic as I am pressed for time.

I am currently EO, but am convinced that I should become OO for the following reasons:

It has been said that whatever differences there might historically have been between the two Churches, they now at least accept each other's Christology as Orthodox. I, personally, would call this a correct answer, but are we asking the right question?

Even if the teachings of the EO Church are not continuous with those implicit at Chalcedon (the vindication of the Antiochene interpretation of the Formulary of Reunion of 433 bearing truth to this), the EO Church is still, nevertheless, historically continuous with that Council. Some important questions are raised as to the pneumatic and apostolic validity of a Church which is historically and causally continuous with a Council as questionable as Chalcedon. These are questions not to be taken lightly. It raises the question, "Exactly how much fulness of Truth or Holy Spirit abides in a Church which maintains continuity with a council so questionable?" Exactly how much Holy Spirit resides in a Church which falsely condemned St. Dioscorus or which had to "clarify" itself with another Council (Constantinople 553)---I mean, does the Holy Spirit, speaking through the auspices of a General Synod, really need to "clarify" Himself? These are questions I don't pretend to know the answer to. But that is precisely why I want to become OO. I'd rather join a Church which I know to always have had the fulness of Truth and Holy Spirit than a Church where it is merely uncertain.

You see, I have the ardent desire to be connected to the True Church (and I do believe there is a true Church). Becoming OO would be one more step to such a surety.

How is Chalcedon any more "questionable" than the three that preceded it?

This poster has not been active since 2005, I doubt you are going to get an answer, unfortunately.

@Deborah and Achronos Thank you both!

« Last Edit: July 28, 2012, 12:44:13 AM by Severian »

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

Provided that suitable theological explanations for Christological formulations can be found, would it be theoretically possible for OOs to posthumously recognize Chalcedon and subsequent EO councils as ecumenical in the sense that they weren't originally ecumenical but they could become ecumenical after OO affirmation?

« Last Edit: July 28, 2012, 02:20:05 AM by Alpo »

Logged

But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.Leviticus 19:34

Provided that suitable theological explanations for Christological formulations can be found, would it be theoretically possible for OOs to posthumously recognize Chalcedon and subsequent EO councils as ecumenical in the sense that they weren't originally ecumenical but they could become ecumenical after OO affirmation?

I think EOs have to define what "ecumenical" means first, which is yet to be known. If it's all about faith, then EOs should acknowledge that we already "accept" them without actually accepting the literal statements, canons, and condemnations. If EOs however care about conciliar inerrancy, then there will be no unity.

« Last Edit: July 28, 2012, 03:38:42 AM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Provided that suitable theological explanations for Christological formulations can be found, would it be theoretically possible for OOs to posthumously recognize Chalcedon and subsequent EO councils as ecumenical in the sense that they weren't originally ecumenical but they could become ecumenical after OO affirmation?

I think EOs have to define what "ecumenical" means first, which is yet to be known. If it's all about faith, then EOs should acknowledge that we already "accept" them without actually accepting the literal statements, canons, and condemnations. If EOs however care about conciliar inerrancy, then there will be no unity.

How Copts/OOs in general define what "ecumenical council" means?

Logged

But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.Leviticus 19:34

Provided that suitable theological explanations for Christological formulations can be found, would it be theoretically possible for OOs to posthumously recognize Chalcedon and subsequent EO councils as ecumenical in the sense that they weren't originally ecumenical but they could become ecumenical after OO affirmation?

I think EOs have to define what "ecumenical" means first, which is yet to be known. If it's all about faith, then EOs should acknowledge that we already "accept" them without actually accepting the literal statements, canons, and condemnations. If EOs however care about conciliar inerrancy, then there will be no unity.

How Copts/OOs in general define what "ecumenical council" means?

Well, to us, an ecumenical council is merely an imperial council that defines what the faith should be. It may contain some canons that pertain to today and other canons that can only be understood for its time. In the end, the understanding of the councils and their history along with the fathers who lead it are an appreciation of the faith they preserved, but as St Cyril has shown, he did not require the council of Ephesus to be literally accepted, but that certain articles of faith, which lead to the famous unity with John of Antioch. That is what acceptance means. If the faith is preserved, it should not matter the persons or the councils literally accepted. It's the the underlying faith if the council.

« Last Edit: July 28, 2012, 11:47:43 AM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Well, to us, an ecumenical council is merely an imperial council that defines what the faith should be.

I would agree.

Let me rephrase that. It affirms what the faith should be.

Doesn't it often do both though? I mean "define" not in the sense of introducing something new, or as giving some authoritative stamp of approval, but in that it elaborates on what had previously been less specifically defined. So, for example, the fathers of the 1st Ecumenical Council didn't create the idea that Jesus is consubstantial with the Father, they just introduced language at the council that made the orthodox view more precise, to stand as a witness against those who were distorting orthodox belief.

Logged

"as [you've] informed us that respect chills love, it is natural to conclude that all your pretty flights arise from your pampered sensibility; and that, vain of this fancied preeminence of organs, you foster every emotion till the fumes, mounting to your brain, dispel the sober suggestions of reason. It is not in this view surprising that when you should argue you become impassioned, and that reflection inflames your imagination instead of enlightening your understanding." - Mary Wollstonecraft

Well, to us, an ecumenical council is merely an imperial council that defines what the faith should be.

I would agree.

Let me rephrase that. It affirms what the faith should be.

Doesn't it often do both though? I mean "define" not in the sense of introducing something new, or as giving some authoritative stamp of approval, but in that it elaborates on what had previously been less specifically defined. So, for example, the fathers of the 1st Ecumenical Council didn't create the idea that Jesus is consubstantial with the Father, they just introduced language at the council that made the orthodox view more precise, to stand as a witness against those who were distorting orthodox belief.

I agree, but I didn't want my words to be misconstrued. I often say it's the faith that defines the council, not vice versa. Hence why in context of what I wrote, the acceptance of the faith is above acceptance of saints, councils, hagiographical stories of miracles, and specific terminologies. As St Paul would say, this isn't the church of Cephas or Paul or Appollos.

« Last Edit: July 28, 2012, 01:26:35 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

In terms of Christology the Oriental understanding is that Christ is "One Nature--the Logos Incarnate," of the full humanity and full divinity. The Byzantine understanding is that Christ is in two natures, full humanity and full divinity.

Just as all of us are of our mother and father and not in our mother and father, so too is the nature of Christ. If Christ is in full humanity and in full divinity, then He is separate in two persons as the Nestorians teach.

One thing I would like to know is how representative this passage is of OOs' beliefs. I am simply unaware what portion of OOs feel different ways on these kinds of questions.

« Last Edit: February 18, 2017, 11:16:47 PM by rakovsky »

Logged

The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20